[Y-Indology] Short explanation of sandhi

[Guest guest]

Such distinctions as slow, fast, agitated, excited speech etc. do indeed appear

in spoken Sanskrit as observed in stage performances of Sanskrit

dramas. It is not possible to see these distinctions in written or printed

versions of Sanskrit. The same sort of distinctions can also be observed in

spoken Sanskrit used in teacher-student conversations in those traditional

institutions in India which still use Sanskrit as the medium of instruction.

Written and especially the printed versions of Sanskrit are often "normalized"

uniformly by the scribes and editors in accordance with their own ideas

of "standard Sanskrit". That the Sandhi form of Sanskrit was the normal

commonly spoken form is evident even from Prakrits where, for instance,

"etadavoca" and "etadahosi" in Pali shows a "trapped" instance of Sandhi, and

where the nominative singular masculine "so" (for Sanskrit "sa.h)

becomes generalized. The same may be said for Pali "pi" for Sanskrit "api".

This indicates that even the popular dialects did not shun sandhi as such,

something quite contrary to efforts like Samsk.rta Bhaarati from Bangalore to

shun all Sandhis in spoken Sanskrit in order to popularize it. The Sandhi

rules as given in Panini are strictly with reference to spoken forms of

Sanskrit, with no reference whatsoever to rules for writing Sanskrit. The same

is

true of the Pratizaakhyas. The Sanskrit manuscripts generally do not leave any

gaps between words, and hence what one sees in the manuscripts as

"devena" could be either the instrumental singular "devena" or two words "deve

na". The conventions for printed Sanskrit essentially develop under

colonial rule and are variously influenced by English printing format. Thus, by

modern conventions, one prints "devairapi" without a gap, but "devo

gacchati" with a gap. However, both the sandhi transformations occur under the

phonetic condition that there is a continuous utterance without a

gap.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

INDOLOGY, phillip.ernest@u... wrote:

>

>

> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, deshpandem wrote:

>

> > precisely what Sandhi is. Written Sanskrit is a close mirroring of

> > the spoken state of affairs, rather than words with gaps.

>

> My reading in Sanskrit is not wide enough for me to know if there are

> variations in sandhi to reflect different circumstances of utterance, such

> as haste, exhaustion, languor, and so on? This is the sort of technical

> challenge that would have appealed to the kavis; on the other hand, it

> would have been impossible, I guess, since the kavis bound themselves

> inflexibly to paaNini.

>

> P. Ernest

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, deshpandem wrote:

 

> it. The Sandhi

> rules as given in Panini are strictly with reference to spoken forms of

> Sanskrit, with no reference whatsoever to rules for writing Sanskrit.

 

But he and other classical grammarians did not make provision for

different sandhis in different emotional (and so on) speech contexts? I

think that even in those (many of them famous) passages in the kaavyam

where

the kavi virtuosically represents the phonetic effect of an emotional

state on the

speech of a character, the kavi does not deviate from paaNini's sandhi

rules? I guess

the sandhi that is learned from paaNini and other texts both Indian and

Western is quite a bit simpler and regular than that that is learned in

oral study with a teacher. But then, these nuances of oral sandhi must be

part

of an unfixed and fluid oral tradition?

 

P. Ernest