Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

a suggestion (diacritics)

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

> I would like to make a suggestion.

> Let the postings be written in Roman script, omitting diacritical marks. The

> knowledgable can supply them in their own mind. To the rest it would not

 

A fine suggestion for commonly known words like Panini, Mahabharata,

sutra, ananda, etc. But when someone is quoting a PASSAGE in Sanskrit,

Pali, Tamil, etc. then the representation (by some sort of system) is the

only way to ensure that we're all (potentially) "on the same page".

 

A propos Madhav Deshpande's recent remark on sandhi (e.g., "etadavoca")

I'd like to suggest that even if ancient grammarians *did* have, in some

cases, knowledge of historical phonetic developments, incorporating such

details into their grammars was unnecessary. If linguists today can

dispense with such things, noting the synchronic nature of their tasks,

then perhaps ancient grammarians took a similar attitude. Their commitment

to "laghava" is clear and this principle might have forced grammarians to

subordinate "unnecessary" phonetic details to the overriding goal of

streamlining their sutras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Tim that Panini and the Pali grammarians might

have discounted historical information, even if they had access

to it, in favor of a "synchronic view" of grammar. However, keep

in mind that Panini's approach is not really synchronic either. It

perhaps panchronic, including all known states and varieties of

Sanskrit differing in time as well as geography, in a single

description. Though not overtly acknowledging the time

dimension, it effectively incorporates it, describing Vedic usages

as descriptive deviations from the norm of the colloquial

bhaa.saa. This applies to his treatment of Sandhis as well. As

for the Pali grammarians, though it is clear that they do know the

Sanskrit grammatical tradition very well, they do not wish to

acknowledge any derivational relation of Pali to Sanskrit, treating

Pali, in stead, as the original language of all beings

(sabba-sattaanam muulabhaasaa). Here the Pali grammars

differ in their descriptive technique from the Prakrit grammars,

which acknowledge not only the existence of Sanskrit, but derive

Prakrit as a descriptive transformation of Sanskrit.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

INDOLOGY, "Timothy C. Cahill" <tccahill@l...> wrote:

>

>

> > I would like to make a suggestion.

> > Let the postings be written in Roman script, omitting

diacritical marks. The

> > knowledgable can supply them in their own mind. To the rest

it would not

>

> A fine suggestion for commonly known words like Panini,

Mahabharata,

> sutra, ananda, etc. But when someone is quoting a PASSAGE

in Sanskrit,

> Pali, Tamil, etc. then the representation (by some sort of

system) is the

> only way to ensure that we're all (potentially) "on the same

page".

>

> A propos Madhav Deshpande's recent remark on sandhi (e.g.,

"etadavoca")

> I'd like to suggest that even if ancient grammarians *did* have,

in some

> cases, knowledge of historical phonetic developments,

incorporating such

> details into their grammars was unnecessary. If linguists today

can

> dispense with such things, noting the synchronic nature of

their tasks,

> then perhaps ancient grammarians took a similar attitude.

Their commitment

> to "laghava" is clear and this principle might have forced

grammarians to

> subordinate "unnecessary" phonetic details to the overriding

goal of

> streamlining their sutras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen this phrase in one of Buddhaghosa's

commentaries, and it is cited also by K.R. Norman. I will try to

find the exact reference.

 

Madhav Deshpande

 

INDOLOGY, "rahula_80" <rahula_80> wrote:

> Hi,

>

>

> > treating

> > Pali, in stead, as the original language of all beings

> > (sabba-sattaanam muulabhaasaa).

>

> Which text does this phrase occur?

>

> Rahula

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...