Print

Print


Philosophers and grammarians of the Middle Indo-Aryan period did not have
any concept of linguistic history the way we do. In fact people of the
period had little sense of *anything* changing with time as opposed to
cyclically repeating itself. They projected the current diglossic siruation
where Sanskrit, the MIA languages and the non-IA languages were like
registers in a continuum. In the classical Indian drama different
characters are depicted as speaking Sanskrit and different MIA languages
according to their social status. In modern editions lines and verses in
MIA languages are furnished with a Sanskrit translation. Since the early
MIA languages like Magadhī and Śaurasenī themselves became standardized and
codified in forms which were associated with literature of and/or for
different religious and/or social groups or different genres much like in
the Greek world different genres were composed in standardized versions of
different dialects. It appears that in time high-caste women learned
Śaurasenī as a traditional literary language much like their male
counterparts learned Sanskrit, and hence in the drama high-caste women are
depicted as speaking that language. Thus different traditional literary
languages were used in the drama to depict social stratification in
language. Imagine a contemporary form of literature were upper-class men
spoke Alfredian Old English, upper-class women spoke Chaucerian Middle
English, middle-class people spoke Shakespearian English, lower-class
people spoke Victorian literary English, soldiers spoke Scots and criminals
spoke Cockney as depicted by Victorian and early 20th century authors.
There are even texts where it is said that devas (traditionally "gods",
"blissful gods" in Tibetan rendering) speak Sanskrit while asuras (trad.
"demons", "wrathful gods" in Tib. parlance) speak an Eastern Prakrit (MIA
language). Go fig!

/bpj

onsdag 13 januari 2016 skrev Alex Fink <[log in to unmask]
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml',[log in to unmask]);>>:

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2016 08:30:20 +0000, And Rosta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> >On 13 Jan 2016 04:19, "Logan Kearsley" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> I did a little research, and there does not seem to be any generic
> >> term for borrowings from a proto- or parent language. Apparently,
> >> though, there are occasionally terms in specific languages for
> >> re-borrowings of words from their own ancestor languages.
> >
> >Some hasty googling suggests that the term _tatsama_ is used only for
> >borrowings from Sanskrit into its descendants, but it is surely ripe for
> >use for words any language borrows from its own ancestor.
>
> Seconded.
>
> Although AIUI the traditional application of the word _tatsama_, by the
> middle Indic grammarians, was "word that looks identical to as a Sanskrit
> word", be it because it's a reborrowing or an inherited word that happened
> not to have undergone any sound changes necessitating a difference in
> spelling.  This contrasted with _tadbhava_, "modified version of a Sanskrit
> word", and _deśi_, "word with no Sanskrit correspondent".
> This all was probably adequately expressive to discuss the native-speaker
> feelings of the stylistic cast of each stratum, etc., but it can't be said
> to have got the etymological detail quite right by our standards.
> (Nowadays I think the senses have been turned into line with etymology, so
> a modern Indian scholar saying _tatsama_ will mean "reborrowing".)
>
> Alex
>