more on Hurrite/IA

[Rajarshi Banerjee]

Finally,
Subrahmanya:
who puts a lot of new questions...........

first of all its not subrahmanya but Rajarshi and whats wrong with
questions. I am sure that niether he or anyone else is happy at being called
lowly and impure. Maybe no malice is intended by your use of kochar's quote
but it is crude and dumb all the same.

MW> Long before 400 BCE, the Brahmana texts (and AV 15) are in the
*colloquial*
speech of the educated Brahmins (different from the "dialect" of the gods
the same Brahmins use inthe same Brahman texts when they make the gods
speak --not just in Mantras!--, but also that of women, and others).

RB> what do you mean educated brahmans. I would think that their language
would be the last place to look for significant changes.

Your statement makes me suspect that the changes must be minimal and not of
the type where a different prakrit type language is imlied. It sounds like
something on the lines of god says thou shalt but I say you shall. Also the
brahmanas are later than vedic.
**************

RB> Its some what an artificial assumption that till 400 BC
>only vedic or classical sanskrit was spoken and no sound changes occured.

MW> Nobody says that. RV jyotis, if maintained, or Panini's word for
'drink'(mayira?, cannot remember) are the proof. (see B. Oguibenine's post).

RB>
Can we really compare panini's stray references with extensive cuniform
literature with the aid of which entire languages have been reconstructed. I
am obviously not talking about reconstruction of classical sanskrit here
but prakrits.

Doesnt panini himself talk about different languages and dialects, how do
you reconstruct them without the aid of inscriptions or literature.

regards RB