Pratisakhyas and sandhi

[Guest guest]

Dear list members,

 

Madhav mentioned a pratisakhya definition of sandhi. Do the pratisakhyas

(or a particular pratisakhya's) description of sandhi (or other matters)

show any differences in what was considered correct pronunciation at the

time of the pratisakhyas from that of Paninis time. Also is a pratisakhya a

grammatical treatise concerned only with the recitation/preservation of the

vedic text of a particular sakhya or does it describe aspects of what that

school considers correct spoken sanskrit in general.

 

 

 

Harry Spier

371 Brickman Rd.

Hurleyville, New York

USA 12747

 

 

 

 

_______________

Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN.

http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp

[Guest guest]

The Praatizaakhyas, as the term itself indicates are designed to

provide proper pronunciation of a particular Vedic Samhitaa text

as understood at a particular time and place. However, as I have

shown in my introduction to the Zaunakiiyaa Caturaadhyaayikaa,

the Praatizaakhyas often offer rules that go beyond the data of

the particular Samhitaas and are identical in wording to that of

the general grammar of Panini. In effect, they provide us a

dialectal snap shot of Sanskrit pronunciation. The texts differ

from each other on many details of phonetics as well as

Sandhis. Many of these texts seem to take for granted the

presence of general grammar, as for instance the Taittiriiya

Praatizaakhya calls such a general grammar puurvazaastra.

There is, however, no evidence that the description of any one

Praatizaakhya was accepted as authoritative beyond the

particular Vedic school.

 

Counter-intuitive sandhis in Sanskrit, as it has been understood

since the days of Whitney, are a reflection of historical

antecedents that are lost later on. For example, the sandhi of

devaan+ tatra results in devaa.mstatra. Where does this "s"

come from? As Whitney has convinsingly shown, this is

because the accusative pl affix historically ends in "ns" rather

than in "n". The particular Sandhi is simply an indication of how

a historical state is "trapped", while it is lost elsewhere. This is

rather similar to "etadavoca" or "etadahosi" of Pali. Pali words

do not end in consonants, and hence there is no free usage of

"etad". However, "etadavoca" and "etadahosi" show "trapped"

instances of "d" of "etad". Pali grammarians call this insertion of

"d", just the same way Panini says there is insertion of "s" in

"devaa.mstatra", because these grammarians had no access to

the prior states of the languages.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

INDOLOGY, "Harry Spier" <harryspier@H...> wrote:

> Dear list members,

>

> Madhav mentioned a pratisakhya definition of sandhi. Do the

pratisakhyas

> (or a particular pratisakhya's) description of sandhi (or other

matters)

> show any differences in what was considered correct

pronunciation at the

> time of the pratisakhyas from that of Paninis time. Also is a

pratisakhya a

> grammatical treatise concerned only with the

recitation/preservation of the

> vedic text of a particular sakhya or does it describe aspects of

what that

> school considers correct spoken sanskrit in general.

>

>

>

> Harry Spier

> 371 Brickman Rd.

> Hurleyville, New York

> USA 12747

>

>

>

>

>

 

_______________

> Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free!  Try MSN.

> http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp