1.What is interesting is that Sanskrit and Prakrit are treated as mutually intelligible is a good starting point. But one could argue that in an environment of bilingualism or multilingualism too , two different languages can be mutually intelligible.

2. Filtering the value-terms such as correct , incorrect, refined (samskrita), corrupt (apabhrashTa) etc., it can be seen that Sanskrit and the Prakrits were considered always alternative forms of each other. Whether Samskrita is considered to have been formed through the samskaraNa= refinement of prAkrita or prAkrita is considered to have been formed through the apabhrams'a = corrupted form of samskrita , the point is that in both the perspectives samskrita and prAkrita are considered to have been formed through the modification of either one from the other.

3. The classical drama's presentation of the two as the social class based mutually intelligible versions of the same language too matches with the above mentioned view under no.2.

Thanks to all the colleagues on the list for the references. I shall take the help of all the books.

Thanks again.

Nagaraj

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 3:46 AM, Hock, Hans Henrich <hhhock@illinois.edu> wrote:

While there may not have been notions like “language” and “dialect” as they are used nowadays, there was the notion of “correct” and “incorrect” (apabhraṣṭa) speech, manifested in many different ways; see especially the Mahābhāṣya on this issue. The different use of Sanskrit and Prakrits in Classical drama offers another perspective, with different forms of speech being appropriate for socially different participants in the action; here, linguistic difference is not directly associated with “correct” and “incorrect” speech but with social status (although the vidūṣaka’s use of [stage] Magahi can be correlated with stray statements in the Vedic tradition that associate l-pronunciation, which is characteristic of Magahi, with “incorrect” speech). What is interesting is that Sanskrit and Prakrit are treated as mutually intelligible. Does that mean they were considered “dialects” of the “same language”? Or does it indicate some kind of diglossia?

On this whole issue see also the following publication(s):

Hock, Hans Henrich, and Rajeshwari Pandharipande. 1976. The sociolinguistic position of Sanskrit in pre-Muslim South Asia. Studies in Language Learning 1:2.106-38. (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign)

Hock, Hans Henrich, and Rajeshwari Pandharipande. 1978. Sanskrit in the pre-Islamic context of South Asia. Aspects of sociolinguistics in South Asia, ed. by B. B. Kachru & S. N. Sridhar, 11-25. (= International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 16.)

Ultimately, a clear distinction between “language” and “dialects” eludes even modern linguistics, in spite of long discussions of this issue.

Best wishes for the New Year,

Hans Henrich Hock

On 24-Dec-2014, at 2:55, Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com> wrote:

When did the convention of treating Prakrits as 'languages' and not as dialects begin?

Was there such an attitude of 'languages' not 'dialects' towards Prakrits in Sanskrit or Prakrit sources of the ancient or medieval period?

Is there a work dealing with this issue?

Thanks in advance for any references in this direction.

--

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
http://listinfo.indology.info

Prof.Nagaraj Paturi

Hyderabad-500044