[INDOLOGY] Traditional/ insider's view of language or dialect status of Prakrits

Mon Dec 29 18:36:42 UTC 2014

Thanks Dr. Ollett.

'Dialect' is a modern category from the discipline of linguistics is
obvious.

What are the emic categories/ perspectives found in Sanskrit and Prakrit
sources in reference to 1. Sanskrit and Prakrits 2. Their mutual relation
3. Their status in relation to each other ?

To which etic categories/ perspectives do those emic
categories/perspectives come close ? Or In what contemporary terms can we
translate those emic categories/perspectives the best?

Which of the two: 'language' or 'dialect' a suitable way of translating the
emic categories towards Prakrit?

Books dealing with these issues are what I am looking for. List members
kindly guided me to some such books. Dr. Ollett's suggestions are very much
useful in this regard.

Thanks again.

Regards,

Nagaraj

On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Andrew Ollett <andrew.ollett at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Most of the responses take for granted that “Prakrit” is Sanskrit that is
> (a) incorrect, or (b) at a further stage of linguistic development, and
> interesting sociolinguistic and historical-linguistic insights come from
> this definition.
>
> But one way to reframe Dr. Paturi's question is: what are the schemas
> under which “Prakrit” (or “the Prakrits”) was classified in ancient and
> medieval India?
>
> Regarding the use of the word prākṛta- in reference to a language (or
> dialect), one can consult Pischel's grammar (§§1ff.), and V. Pisani, “On
> the Origin of Prākṛtam and Pāli as Language Designations,” pp. 185–191 in *Felicitation
> Volume Presented to Professor Sripad Krishna Belvalkar*, Benares: M.B.
> Dass, 1957 (completely outdated when it comes to Pali). And my
> dissertation, eventually. As far as I know, the earliest such uses, which
> are still difficult to date reliably, are in the Nāṭyaśāstra (of pāṭhyam),
> in the Gāthāsaptaśatī (of kāvyam), and in the Sthānāṅgasūtra (of bhaṇitī).
> Dr. Paturi might be interested in the classification found in the Eastern
> Prakrit grammarians, viz. bhāṣā, vibhāṣā, apabhraṃśa, and paiśācika.
> Acharya’s ed. of the Prākṛtasarvasva has some discussion of this.
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Michael Witzel <witzel at fas.harvard.edu>
> wrote:
>
>> In addition see the detailed discussions:
>>
>> ** Tracing the Vedic dialects.* in: Colette Caillat, Dialectes dans les
>> litteratures indo-aryennes. Actes du Colloque International organise par UA
>> 1058 sous les auspices du C.N.R.S avec le soutien du College de France, de
>> la Fondation Hugot du College de France, de l'Universite de Paris III, du
>> Ministre des Affaires Etrangeres, Paris (Fondation Hugot) 16-18 Septembre
>> 1986.
>> Paris (College de France, Institut de Civilisation Indienne) 1989; 97-264
>>
>> [where you can see that a particular local dialect feature (widely)
>> spreads in the subsequent text levels]
>>
>>  ** Notes on Vedic dialects, 1. * Zinbun, Annals of the Institute for
>> Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 67 (1991) Kyoto 1991, 31-70
>>
>> ** Notes on Vedic Dialects, 2. *In : G. Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica.
>> FS für Gert Klingenschmitt. Indische, iranische und indogermanische Studien
>> dem verehrten Jubilar dargebracht zu seinem fünfundsechigsten Geburtstag.
>> Taimering: Schweiger VWT-Verlag 2005, 733-743.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> On Dec 27, 2014, at 1:18 PM, Hock, Hans Henrich wrote:
>>
>>  Language periodization, just like many aspects of textual
>> periodization, is a perennial problem and only further complicates the
>> picture. There are Prakritic forms as early as the Rig Veda (such as
>> *vikaṭa* beside *vikṛta*, or *kitava* for expected *kṛtavat*).
>>
>>  Regarding Vedic “dialects”, there is an interesting paper by Emeneau: The
>> dialects of Old Indo-Aryan. In: *Ancient Indo-European dialects*, ed. by
>> Henrik Birnbaum and Jaan Puhvel, 123–138. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University
>> of California Press, 1966.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>
>>  Hans Henrich Hock
>>
>>
>>  On 27-Dec-2014, at 3:38, Oleg Bendz <oleg.bendz at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>   2014-12-27
>>
>>  Dear All:
>>
>>  The "prakrit" of Gandhara (the Kushans) had an army, but maybe not a
>> navy.
>> Language periodization may be an important consideration.
>> The problem of language and dialect may reside in the terminology itself.
>> I should stop here.
>>
>>  O.Bendz
>>
>>
>>   On Friday, December 26, 2014 5:48 PM, Matthew Kapstein <
>> mkapstei at uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Ultimately, a clear distinction between “language” and “dialects” eludes
>> even modern linguistics, in spite of long discussions of this issue.
>>
>> As Max Weinreich elegantly put it: "A language is a dialect with an army
>> and navy."
>>
>>
>> Matthew Kapstein
>> Directeur d'études,
>> Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes
>>
>> Numata Visiting Professor of Buddhist Studies,
>> The University of Chicago
>>
>> ________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>
>>
>> ============
>>
>> Michael Witzel
>> witzel at fas.harvard.edu
>> <www.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm>
>> Wales Prof. of Sanskrit,
>> Dept. of South Asian Studies, Harvard University
>> 1 Bow Street,
>> Cambridge MA 02138, USA
>>
>> phone: 1- 617 - 495 3295, fax 617 - 496 8571;
>> direct line:  617- 496 2990
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INDOLOGY mailing list
>> INDOLOGY at list.indology.info
>> http://listinfo.indology.info
>>
>
>

-- 
Prof.Nagaraj Paturi
Hyderabad-500044

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20141230/9be3bbde/attachment.htm>