Fw: Re: Sanskrit as an artificial language

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

One more question. What had been the language that Asokan Prakrit sprang from? Did that have a dual number in its declensional strucure? Did that have four tense systems each with the same modal endings? These features are lacking in MIA.  If they did not have it how did Vedic have it? Artificially? Then Greek too must have created such a system artificially following its Vedic sister.
I hope this will bring home the absurdity of the argument. I regret the typographical error in my previous mail.
 
DB

--- On Thu, 19/2/09, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya2004 at yahoo.co.in> wrote:

From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya2004 at yahoo.co.in>
Subject: Re: frequencies
To: "Indology" <INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk>
Date: Thursday, 19 February, 2009, 9:55 AM







<And is it not also possible that at some stage, without the use of
writing, archaic vocabulary and archaic grammatical features which had fallen
out of the everyday spoken language were preserved for the production of new
hymns?>
What prompts one to explore such possibilities of which there is no hint in the literature? Why should not the same hold good for Homer? And then why not extend the same argument to speculate upon the artificiality of Homeric Greek?  It is absurd and just luxury in speculation to assume that a language that has parallels should have been created artificially without a dialectal base and then a literature should be produced. At least that is not a linguist's standpoint.  
Something akin happened to Classical Sanskrit. But that took place when it  when it lost its dialectal base.
Moreover, standard dialects exist everywhere. The BBC does not allow Cockney in speeches delivered through it. Does it? And does that make Standard British English an artificial language?
DB

--- On Wed, 18/2/09, Allen W Thrasher <athr at LOC.GOV> wrote:

From: Allen W Thrasher <athr at LOC.GOV>
Subject: Re: frequencies
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Date: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009, 9:52 PM

Is it not possible that the language of the hymns (or at least some of them) was
largely an artificial one, at least that it exploited every possibility of the
language for artifice, artifice which might extend to morphology as well as
imagery?  And is it not also possible that at some stage, without the use of
writing, archaic vocabulary and archaic grammatical features which had fallen
out of the everyday spoken language were preserved for the production of new
hymns?

Allen


Allen W. Thrasher, Ph.D.
Senior Reference Librarian
Team Coordinator
South Asia Team, Asian Division
Library of Congress, Jefferson Building 150
101 Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, DC 20540-4810
tel. 202-707-3732; fax 202-707-1724; athr at loc.gov
The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Library of
Congress.

>>> Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya2004 at YAHOO.CO.IN> 2/18/2009
11:06:54 AM >>>

09 02 18
Victor's observations pertain to post-Paa.ninian Classical Sanskrit. But
early Vedic was a living language with a Vedic dialectal base. There was no
Prakrit (that has a system different from the one common to Classical Sanskrit
and Vedic) around in say 1000 BCE. The fact that post-Paa.ninian records
outnumber Vedic ones is no reason for forgetting the reality of the Vedic
dialects. To observations like "Sanskrit is by definition an artificial
language" one must add "if we do not regard Vedic as Sanskrit"
But that does not stand.
DB
--- On Wed, 18/2/09, victor van Bijlert <victorvanbijlert at KPNPLANET.NL>
wrote:

From: victor van Bijlert <victorvanbijlert at KPNPLANET.NL>
Subject: Re: frequencies
To: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Date: Wednesday, 18 February, 2009, 1:36 PM

I think we should also take into consideration that Sanskrit is by
definition an artificial language. The word itself means after all something
like: purified, perfected. It stood in contrast to the Prakrits, the natural
languages (of the Aryan elites?). Being an artificial language, Sanskrit
would not have the same features as a spoken contact language used in the
bazaars.


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Indology [mailto:INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk] Namens Alexandra Vandergeer
Verzonden: woensdag 18 februari 2009 8:18
Aan: INDOLOGY at liverpool.ac.uk
Onderwerp: Re: frequencies

Correct, but does it also hold for the top100 of used words? I doubt so, I
personally think that the highly specialized vocabularies, or jargons,
fall in a lower category, except of course of the name and ways of address
of the deity in a purana devoted to that particular deity and so on and so
on. Anyway it would be interesting to see whether indeed the different
genres in Skt texts are so different as we generally assume, restricting
ourselves to the top100. It would be equally interesting to see whether
there is a shift in language use throughout the centuries in the
high-frequency words.

Alexandra

> Frequency in Sanskrit does not work in the same way as in English and
> other modern languges. It is possible to complie a list of 3000 words
> in English that cover 70-80% of "all" conversations, newspaper
> articles, etc. This is just not possible in the case of Sanskrit--if
> it were possible, it would have been done a long time ago--because the
> vocabulary is highly specialized according to literary genres. On the
> other hand, if one moves within the same genre, one can go back and
> forth hundreds of years without any difficulty, something that cannot
> be done in English, German, French and do on. Hebrew is an exception,
> but this is a special case.
> Best wishes,
> EF



      Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to
http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/


Check out the all-new Messenger 9.0! Click here.


      Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/