I came across this interesting (attached) article that might help with the discussion.

(Università degli Studi di Torino)
Eternal Sanskrit and the meaning of the tripartite
Prakrit terminology tatsama, tadbhava and deśī. (2012)

All the best,

Patrick McCartney

PhD Candidate
School of Culture, History & Language
College of the Asia-Pacific
The Australian National University
Canberra, Australia, 0200

Skype - psdmccartney

Australia:  +61 487 398   354
Germany: +49 157 5469 4045

On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Hock, Hans Henrich <hhhock@illinois.edu> 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.


Hans Henrich Hock

On 27-Dec-2014, at 3:38, Oleg Bendz <oleg.bendz@yahoo.com> wrote:


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.


On Friday, December 26, 2014 5:48 PM, Matthew Kapstein <mkapstei@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 mailing list