Peter J. Claus
pclaus at haywire.csuhayward.edu
Thu Sep 12 12:33:32 EDT 1996
I had wanted to stay out of this discussion, but ...
I'm sure nobody wants Sanskrit as the LIST medium, but to even suggest it
is to equate Indology with the study of Sanskrit. I hope there is noone
who wants to do THAT, either.
On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, Girish Beeharry wrote:
> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 14:29:29 BST
> From: Girish Beeharry <gkb at ast.cam.ac.uk>
> Reply-To: indology at liverpool.ac.uk
> To: Members of the list <indology at liverpool.ac.uk>
> Subject: Re: Scripts (continued)
> >African-American Vernacular]. If we really wanted to display our
> >philological feathers, perhaps Sanskrit should be the medium of exchange,
> >after all, as it has been in India for some 2000 yrs [and probably for
> >similar reasons].... This is the proper function of dead languages, I
> Well, I am looking forward to your sandeshas! There is some Net communicating,
> by amateurs, in Sanskrit. It works very well. Practically everyone uses
> ITRANS's scheme of transliteration. You professionals might think of doing it
> in anushthubha; that should be easy ... :-) A convention for the Vedic accents
> has to be agreed upon, though.
> As for describing Skt as a dead language, would you then classify Latin & Greek
> as mummified languages?
> Girish Beeharry
More information about the INDOLOGY