Re: Why doesn't the Gita use Vedic?
anal...@hotmail.com
> Joachim Pense wrote:
> > Am Wed, 12 Dec 2007 22:29:58 +0000 schrieb António Marques:
>
> >> Joachim Pense wrote:
> >>> I just asked this question hidden in a thread, but maybe it should
> >>> stand out a bit more.
>
> >>> We are told:
>
> >>> The Vedic scriptures (or most of them) are in Vedic, a "variant of
> >>> Sanskrit" which is distinctly different from "Sanskrit proper".
>
> >>> The Vedic language was considered holy, and changing it was something
> >>> that had to be avoided under all circumstances.
>
> >>> At the time when the epics (e.g. the Mahabarata) were composed,
> >>> Sanskrit wasn't a native language of anybody. At that time Prakrit
> >>> languages were spoken, and Sanskrit continued to be studied as a
> >>> learned language.
>
> >>> I am unable to understand why Sanskrit was used and not Vedic under
> >>> these circumstances.
> >> I think the answer is that the prestige of a language is not, as people
> >> like to think, directly associated to its intrinsic qualities. Vedic may
> >> have been holy, but perhaps at that time the learned community was
> >> smaller and didn't have such broad interests?
>
> > But the Vedic texts were memorized and chanted and studied all the
> > time.
>
> >> By the time it grew strong
> >> enough to develop a diverse body of literature, the language had
> >> evolved?
> > > And only from then on did the desire to keep a stable language
> >> modelled on that of the 'blossoming' period become firmly established?
>
> >> Iow, Vedic had no 'critical mass'.
>
> > The body of Vedic literature is large. Was there really just a desire
> > to keep a stable language? Why did they keep a stable language that
> > was different from the older language that they had to keep stable for
> > religious reasons anyway? And wrote even religious texts in the later
> > language?
>
> My point with critical mass was one of broadness of topics. My
> impression was that the earlier texts were essentially religious, though
> one might object that 'religious' is in a way a post-hoc labeling. It's
> not uncommon that religious texts preserve a more conservative language;
> could vedic literature have been 'classicised' if it were not mostly
> religious?
There is nothing post-hoc about labeling Vedic religious - most Hindus
today believe that all authentic aspects of worship,sanskaras and
methaphysics must be sanctioned by Vedic authority. While the pure
chanting of the Vedas continues to this day, all Hindu Sanskaras (that
are performed at birth, marriage, death etc.), most prayers (both at
temples and Yagnas) are conducted with mantras that are taken from the
whole continuum of Sankrit texts from the Vedas to the Puranas.
The Vedic versus classical sanskrit division is another manifestation
of tthe western obsession with classifying, list-making,labeling etc.
This was clearly a rationalization of the language by elites driven by
the evolution of society as a whole and not, as obsessed by linguists,
a purely language-driven phenomenon. The difference I think would be
analogous to the difference between the language of the King James
Bible and the Shakespeare canon and the language of classic literature
from the Victorian era.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tripur...@yahoo.com
I agree with you. This nonsense of Vedic and Sanskrit is from those
who know no Sanskrit or any Indian language properly. Vedic language
is the metric expression of Sanskrit. Panini refers to that as
chandhasam (metric). Vedic metres have exemptions. Just like in Tamil,
you cannot apply YappilakaNam rules to prose. This is too much for
European -minded "scholars" to follow.
"Tham evam vidvan amrutha iha bhavathi" is a vedic verse. It is just
like classical Sanskrit! No difference but there are swaras for
chanting. Those who are brought up with European mindset and
unfamiliar with the ethos and culture, and vedic tradition do not
follow this. Added to this there are Indian "scholars" who write to
get promotions, write books, to make money, to convert, to abuse etc
etc
So I stopped discussing this.
They can think and write what they want.
Waste of time
Peter T. Daniels
> There is nothing post-hoc about labeling Vedic religious - most Hindus
> today believe that all authentic aspects of worship,sanskaras and
> methaphysics must be sanctioned by Vedic authority.
I find it very hard to believe that the vast majority of the world's
nearly one billion Hindus give a moment's thought to such questions,
any more than adherents to any other religion devote any attention at
all to matters of theology.
anal...@hotmail.com
Thanks for pointing out a sloppiness in my original statement. It
applies directly to Sankaracharyas and other heads of Hindu religious
orders and orthodox Hindu preachers with mass following. It also
applies to educated Hindus broadly - but as for the mass of
practicisng Hindus today - they are probably only vaguely aware of the
Vedas as sacred texts, if at all.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> This nonsense of Vedic and Sanskrit is from those
> who know no Sanskrit or any Indian language properly. Vedic language
> is the metric expression of Sanskrit. Panini refers to that as
> chandhasam (metric).
Panini gave grammatical rules used only in "chadhasam".
> "Tham evam vidvan amrutha iha bhavathi" is a vedic verse. It is just
> like classical Sanskrit!
I don't know about lexically but grammatically, it's a sentence in
both Vedic and Classical Sanskrit.
"tamEvam vidvanamrta iha bhAvat" means
One who knows him thus becomes immortal even in this life
In Vedic but not Classical Sanskrit, it can also be expressed as:
"tamEvam vidvanamrta iha bhAvat", meaning:
One who were to know him thus, would become immortal even in this
life.
> No difference but there are swaras for chanting.
It is commonly claimed that the udatta was used also in speaking.
> Those who are brought up with European mindset and
> unfamiliar with the ethos and culture, and vedic tradition do not
> follow this.
Look for bhAvat and bhAvant in Classical Sanskrit texts. It is claimed
that it is used only in Vedic with the meaning of "be". Unfortunately
both bhavat and bhavant have meanings other than "be", so you'll get
false hits when you search.
Joachim Pense
>
> The Vedic versus classical sanskrit division is another manifestation
> of tthe western obsession with classifying, list-making,labeling etc.
You really mean the Indian culture doesn't show an obsession with
classifying, list-making, labeling?
Joachim
tripur...@yahoo.com
This is why I do not want to discuss this. You seem to claim there is
a word called bhavat! No such thing exists. Pure fiction. To say
bhavathi does not exist in classical Sanskrit is preposterous. If you
concoct such words like bhavat, there is no point discussing this. I
cannot discuss with any one who is unfamiliar with the language. Such
pronouncements as you make regarding this subject are so ridiculous,
they are meant for the consumption of people who discuss with no idea
of what hey are talking about
I wont reply
Thanks
Trond Engen
> On Dec 15, 3:49 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Look for bhAvat and bhAvant in Classical Sanskrit texts. [...]
>
> [...] If you concoct such words like bhavat, there is no point
> discussing this. [...]
>
> I wont reply
Bhavat! Bhavat!
--
Trond Engen
- in the reformed Indian spelling
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 15, 3:49 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 15, 5:33 am, tripurant...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Look for bhavat and bhavAn in Classical Sanskrit texts. It is claimed
> > that these are used only in Vedic with the meaning of "be". Unfortunately
> > both bhavat and bhavAn have meanings other than "be", so you'll get
> > false hits when you search.
I mades some mistakes; corrected above.
> This is why I do not want to discuss this. You seem to claim there is
> a word called bhavat!
I said "it is claimed"; I didn't say it's my claim.
Chase down the references you can here:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bhavat+subjunctive&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
In particular, try to look up Whitney's reference "bhAgyo bhavat"; my
copy of Whitney is in storage.
> No such thing exists.
It's used with more than one meaning which makes it difficult to
search for the instances with the right meaning.
> Pure fiction. To say
> bhavathi does not exist in classical Sanskrit is preposterous.
No one said bhavati doesn't exist.
phog...@abo.fi
> tripurant...@yahoo.com skreiv:
>
> > On Dec 15, 3:49 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Look for bhAvat and bhAvant in Classical Sanskrit texts. [...]
>
> > [...] If you concoct such words like bhavat, there is no point
> > discussing this. [...]
>
> > I wont reply
>
> Bhavat! Bhavat!
I am afraid he won't keep his promise.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> The Vedic versus classical sanskrit division is another manifestation
> of tthe western obsession
Ah, so Panini was an obsessed Westerner! What next?
anal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Please show a direct quote from Panini where he mentions something
approximating what Western scholars call "Vedic" and "Classical
Sanskrit" respectively.
If the original is not easily accessible - a direct translation would
do - but interpretations, second-hand and third-hand repetitions won't
do.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> On Dec 17, 4:29 pm, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 5:07 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > The Vedic versus classical sanskrit division is another manifestation
> > > of tthe western obsession
>
> > Ah, so Panini was an obsessed Westerner! What next?
>
> Please show a direct quote from Panini where he mentions something
> approximating what Western scholars call "Vedic" and "Classical
> Sanskrit" respectively.
Unfortunately, translations are not in the public domain. I can find
only the original:
http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/aShTAdhyAyI.pdf
1.2.36 vibhAsha chandasi = Vedic Sanskrit
anal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> On Dec 17, 4:59 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 17, 4:29 pm, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 5:07 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > > The Vedic versus classical sanskrit division is another manifestation
> > > > of tthe western obsession
>
> > > Ah, so Panini was an obsessed Westerner! What next?
>
> > Please show a direct quote from Panini where he mentions something
> > approximating what Western scholars call "Vedic" and "Classical
> > Sanskrit" respectively.
>
> Unfortunately, translations are not in the public domain. I can find
> only the original:http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/aShTAdhyAyI.pdf
> 1.2.36 vibhAsha chandasi = Vedic Sanskrit
>
>
The Veda is a set of texts. To derive a language called "vedic
sanskrit" (by abstracting them from other Sanskrit works, allegedly
dated later ) is a western device (is there a language/dialect called
Shakespearean English?). Panini apparently gave the rules of language
usage in the Veda and also other usages he had observed. Im sure that
there is no mention directly or indirectly in Panini of language
evolution from "Vedic" to "classical Sanskrit". In other words, does
he say or imply anywhere that usages of "vedic" were earlier than
other usages he gave rules for?
The minor changes in observed usages he documented do not imply change
in language/dialect. It is Westerm mischife-makers who need this
Vedic/Classical sanskrit distinction to support their fairy tale hist/
comp ling theories.
>
> > If the original is not easily accessible - a direct translation would
> > do - but interpretations, second-hand and third-hand repetitions won't
> > do.- Hide quoted text -
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
He said some of his rules applied only to Chandasi. I don't know
whether he said that this was because Chandasi was archaic.
> The minor changes in observed usages he documented do not imply change
> in language/dialect.
It's called another stage of the language, not another language or
another language. Most of his rules applied to all the kinds of
Sanskrit he wrote about; he identified the rules that applied only to
Chandasi.
There are rules that apply only to classical Sanskrit; I don't know
whether these had appeared yet in Panini's time and if so, whether he
described them. For example, the ablative case for a feminine noun has
a suffix in classical Sanskrit that it doesn't have in Vedic Sanskrit.
> It is Westerm mischife-makers who need this
> Vedic/Classical sanskrit distinction to support their fairy tale hist/
> comp ling theories.
They are probably quoting Panini for the most part. There are
exceptions such as someone claiming that Panini failed to identify the
Vedic injunctive and the claim being refuted by an Indian (Swaminathan
or something like that) who was not a professional linguist.
Peter T. Daniels
> On Dec 17, 9:16 pm, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 4:59 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Dec 17, 4:29 pm, "M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Dec 15, 5:07 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > The Vedic versus classical sanskrit division is another manifestation
> > > > > of tthe western obsession
>
> > > > Ah, so Panini was an obsessed Westerner! What next?
>
> > > Please show a direct quote from Panini where he mentions something
> > > approximating what Western scholars call "Vedic" and "Classical
> > > Sanskrit" respectively.
>
> > Unfortunately, translations are not in the public domain. I can find
> > only the original:http://sanskritdocuments.org/all_pdf/aShTAdhyAyI.pdf
> > 1.2.36 vibhAsha chandasi = Vedic Sanskrit
>
> The Veda is a set of texts. To derive a language called "vedic
> sanskrit" (by abstracting them from other Sanskrit works, allegedly
> dated later ) is a western device (is there a language/dialect called
> Shakespearean English?).
Of course there is, and there are grammars of it. (Did it not even
occur to you to check before you further flaunted your ignorance?)
> Panini apparently gave the rules of language
> usage in the Veda and also other usages he had observed. Im sure that
> there is no mention directly or indirectly in Panini of language
> evolution from "Vedic" to "classical Sanskrit". In other words, does
> he say or imply anywhere that usages of "vedic" were earlier than
> other usages he gave rules for?
>
> The minor changes in observed usages he documented do not imply change
> in language/dialect. It is Westerm mischife-makers who need this
> Vedic/Classical sanskrit distinction to support their fairy tale hist/
> comp ling theories.
What do you think "changes in observed usages" are if not "change in
language/dialect"?
> > > If the original is not easily accessible - a direct translation would
> > > do - but interpretations, second-hand and third-hand repetitions won't
> > > do.-
Why did you remove the text that Ranjit quoted, seeing as you never
remove anything else?
That verse -- 1.2.36 -- is rendered by Sumitra M. Katre as follows:
"(In the recitation of) the Veda (chandasi) [the monotone 34] is
optional (vibhasa)."
(diacritics omitted)
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
Hmm, "optional" is a meaning. If you have the translation, you're
better equipped than I am. Here are all the verses with chandasi; see
if you can find something other than prosody (tone) that is specific
to only chandasi:
1.2.36
1.2.61
1.4.9
1.4.20
1.4.81
2.3.3
2.3.62
2.4.28
2.4.39
2.4.73
2.4.76
3.1.50
3.1.59
3.1.84
3.1.118
3.1.123
3.2.27
3.2.63
3.2.73
3.2.88
3.2.105
3.2.137
3.2.170
3.3.129
3.4.6
3.4.88
3.4.117
4.1.29
4.1.46
4.1.59
4.1.71
4.2.55
4.3.19
4.3.71
4.3.106
4.3.150
4.4.93
4.4.106
4.4.110
5.1.61
5.1.67
5.1.91
5.1.106
5.1.118
5.2.50
5.2.89
5.2.122
5.3.13
5.3.20
5.3.26
5.3.33
5.3.49
5.3.59
5.3.111
5.4.12
5.4.41
5.4.103
5.4.123
5.4.142
5.4.158
6.1.34
6.1.52
6.1.60
6.1.70
6.1.83
6.1.106
6.1.126
6.1.133
6.1.170
6.1.178
6.1.209
6.2.119
6.2.164
6.2.199
6.3.33
6.3.63
6.3.84
6.3.96
6.3.108
6.3.126
6.4.5
6.4.58
6.4.73
6.4.75
6.4.86
6.4.99
6.4.102
6.4.162
6.4.175
7.1.8
7.1.10
7.1.26
7.1.38
7.1.56
7.1.76
7.1.83
7.1.103
7.2.31
7.3.97
7.4.8
7.4.35
7.4.44
7.4.64
7.4.78
8.1.35
8.1.56
8.1.64
8.2.15
8.2.61
8.2.70
8.3.1
8.3.49
8.3.105
8.3.119
8.4.26
anal...@hotmail.com
"stage" implies evolution. It is my contention that evolution was
inserted between "Vedic" and "classical sanskrit" by Westerners (and
accepted by their slavish Indian imitators).
All we can say is that the literary/religious works that have come
down to us from what is called the "Classical Sanskirt" era show
usages that are slightly different from those in the Veda.
This in no way shape or form shows that the language of the people of
the Sindhu/Saraswati/Ganga/Yamuna people as a whole evolved along the
lines of the observed differences is usage. I am sure that there was
"vulgar" sanskrit from the time of the Vedas that was subject to all
the sound changes comp linguists obsess about - but as long as
Sanskritic society had vitality, the high language was maintained more
or less intact.
>
> There are rules that apply only to classical Sanskrit; I don't know
> whether these had appeared yet in Panini's time and if so, whether he
> described them. For example, the ablative case for a feminine noun has
> a suffix in classical Sanskrit that it doesn't have in Vedic Sanskrit.
>
> > It is Westerm mischife-makers who need this
> > Vedic/Classical sanskrit distinction to support their fairy tale hist/
> > comp ling theories.
>
> They are probably quoting Panini for the most part.
Don't guess. I find the usual "believed by scholars" type weasel
words in most statement about "Vedic" and "classical" sanskrit.
Everything Westerners have asserted is in India's ancient texts has to
be discarded and the texts examined afresh by Indians.
There are
> exceptions such as someone claiming that Panini failed to identify the
> Vedic injunctive and the claim being refuted by an Indian (Swaminathan
> or something like that) who was not a professional linguist.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > If the original is not easily accessible - a direct translation would
> > > > do - but interpretations, second-hand and third-hand repetitions won't
> > > > do.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Peter T. Daniels
No, I don't think I'm going to chase after scores of references for
you. What do we generally say about people doing their own research?
Peter T. Daniels
> On Dec 17, 11:38 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 8:13 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > The minor changes in observed usages he documented do not imply change
> > > in language/dialect.
>
> > It's called another stage of the language, not another language or
> > another language. Most of his rules applied to all the kinds of
> > Sanskrit he wrote about; he identified the rules that applied only to
> > Chandasi.
>
> "stage" implies evolution. It is my contention that evolution was
> inserted between "Vedic" and "classical sanskrit" by Westerners (and
> accepted by their slavish Indian imitators).
>
> All we can say is that the literary/religious works that have come
> down to us from what is called the "Classical Sanskirt" era show
> usages that are slightly different from those in the Veda.
>
> This in no way shape or form shows that the language of the people of
> the Sindhu/Saraswati/Ganga/Yamuna people as a whole evolved along the
> lines of the observed differences is usage. I am sure that there was
> "vulgar" sanskrit from the time of the Vedas that was subject to all
> the sound changes comp linguists obsess about - but as long as
> Sanskritic society had vitality, the high language was maintained more
> or less intact.
Duh, you idiot, that's _exactly_ what everyone has known for a very
long time.
If you're too lazy to read an entire book on the history of Sanskrit,
maybe you could deal with a chapter, such as George Cardona's in the
volume he edited for Routledge, *The Indo-Aryan Languages*.
> > There are rules that apply only to classical Sanskrit; I don't know
> > whether these had appeared yet in Panini's time and if so, whether he
> > described them. For example, the ablative case for a feminine noun has
> > a suffix in classical Sanskrit that it doesn't have in Vedic Sanskrit.
>
> > > It is Westerm mischife-makers who need this
> > > Vedic/Classical sanskrit distinction to support their fairy tale hist/
> > > comp ling theories.
>
> > They are probably quoting Panini for the most part.
>
> Don't guess. I find the usual "believed by scholars" type weasel
> words in most statement about "Vedic" and "classical" sanskrit.
> Everything Westerners have asserted is in India's ancient texts has to
> be discarded and the texts examined afresh by Indians.
Racist pig.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 17, 11:38 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> "stage" implies evolution.
Of course. It's called a later stage where only one language is
identified as a child of an older* language. If two languages are
identified as children, they are called descendant languages.
* a language spoken at an earlier date; if two languages are spoken at
the same date, they tend not to be classified as older/ younger than
each other.
> It is my contention that evolution was
> inserted between "Vedic" and "classical sanskrit" by Westerners (and
> accepted by their slavish Indian imitators).
You have been given an opportunity to analyze developments in Tamil-
Malayalam. Why don't you take the opportunity and explain how later
usages came without evolution?
How did the Old Tamil infinitive /cAkuka/ become Tamil [sAw@] but
remain [c^AgUg@] in Malayalam in certain contexts?
Old Tamil /cAkuka vENDAm/ = Tamil [sAw@ we:n.d.A]
Another example is a word meaning "again" or "repeatedly".
Tamil /mINDum/ = Malayalam /vINDum/
anal...@hotmail.com
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<everything snipped>
Please cut the crap and evasions.
Did Panini record differences or changes(in his words)?
Arindam Banerjee
> of tthe western obsession with classifying, list-making,labeling etc.
> This was clearly a rationalization of the language by elites driven by
> the evolution of society as a whole and not, as obsessed by linguists,
> a purely language-driven phenomenon. The difference I think would be
> analogous to the difference between the language of the King James
> Bible and the Shakespeare canon and the language of classic literature
> from the Victorian era.
I don't think your analogy is correct. The way the English language
was written over time differed quite a lot. In the oral Indian
tradition this was not an issue at all.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 18, 3:17 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
>
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Please cut the crap and evasions.
This is undoubtedly your way to evade explaining what how changes in
the Dravidian examples happened without evolution. Explain it.
anal...@hotmail.com
There is nothing called Dravidian languages. If you want to discuss
the languages of Southern India and Tamil Eelam, thats another
discussion. Please stick to the thread topic.
I take it that the notion of Sanskrit "Changing" cannot be supported
from the work of Panini.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 18, 10:38 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> I take it that the notion of Sanskrit "Changing" cannot be supported
> from the work of Panini.
There's no way for you to take it since I haven't said anything about
it.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
I was mistaken about chandas. It is Vedic prose or chanted material.
Mantre is chanted material. So, he discusses 4 kinds of Sanskrit -
udicya (Northern) bhasha, pracya (Eastern) bhasha, chandasi and
mantre. Now, figure out why he used four different terms. In order to
say "there are these 4 dialects, but they are identical"? If so, why
does he use 4 terms?
He treats udicya and pracya bhasha as 2 dialects and gives some
differences between them. Then, treating the two together as bhasha,
he gives rules that are peculiar to chandas (including mantre) and
rules peculiar to mantre.
His rules for lET (subjunctive and injunctive) are not mentioned as
being peculiar to chandas which makes it seem like they were also in
his bhashas. Subjunctives are replaced by optatives in classical
Sanskrit literature, so it seems that Paninian Sanskrit was somewhere
between Vedic and classical Sanskrit.
anal...@hotmail.com
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 18, 3:57 pm, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Did Panini record differences or changes(in his words)?
>
> I was mistaken about chandas. It is Vedic prose or chanted material.
> Mantre is chanted material. So, he discusses 4 kinds of Sanskrit -
> udicya (Northern) bhasha, pracya (Eastern) bhasha, chandasi and
> mantre. Now, figure out why he used four different terms. In order to
> say "there are these 4 dialects, but they are identical"? If so, why
> does he use 4 terms?
>
You are losing it. I am not challenging difference - I am challenging
change. I have no doubt that Panini has said nothing about any of the
languages varieties he observed being the result of change over time
of one of them or from the favorite mythical beast of hist/comp ling -
a proto-language of all them.
I also have no doubt that the Veda and the post-Vedic sacred works
were the possession of a small fraction of Sanskritic people.
Prakritization must have been happening among the less cultivated all
along and I am sure the precious sound changes etc. of hist/comp ling
were all there in their full glory in the speech of ordinary folks
right from the time the Vedas were beginning to be composed.
There is nothing from hist/comp ling that can apply to the differences
between the langauge of the Veda and, say, the later Upanishads.
Traditional hist/comp ling applies only to language degradation and
not to stylistic language changes elites choose to make.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> I also have no doubt that the Veda and the post-Vedic sacred works
> were the possession of a small fraction of Sanskritic people.
> Prakritization must have been happening among the less cultivated all
> along and I am sure the precious sound changes etc. of hist/comp ling
> were all there in their full glory in the speech of ordinary folks
> right from the time the Vedas were beginning to be composed.
Then, it applies to spoken Sanskrit ... and changes in grammarians'
Sanskrit came from spoken Sanskrit.
> There is nothing from hist/comp ling that can apply to the differences
> between the langauge of the Veda and, say, the later Upanishads.
> Traditional hist/comp ling applies only to language degradation and
> not to stylistic language changes elites choose to make.
It applies to language spoken by the public, not to languages
constructed by individuals who deliberately concoct rules without
getting them from spoken language. Panini did not concoct rules; he
described a spoken language (bhasha) and a scriptural language
(chandas) which had at once been a spoken language. So, comparative
linguistics applies to the dialects covered by Panini. It applies to
differences within the Rig Samita itself; eg., differences between
Mandala 2 and Mandala 10 of the Rig Samhita. Patanjali too did not
concoct rules; he said things like "such and such constructions are
not used any more".
Comparative linguistics doesn't deal with language degradation; try to
find a published article on language degradation.
anal...@hotmail.com
You waste a lot of time by being infantile and you spread a lot of
misinfornation also (CAku as a verb maning "die" is current Tamil).
The language elite change styles for creative reasons (and I don't
know how you made the infantile construction that by the elite I meant
grammarians - I meant the authors of creative works in the high
language of the time). It is Westerners who want to read into the
writings of ancient grammarians that Sanskrit became less Indo-
European gradually as the language spread from the Sapta Sindhu
further East.
Since Sanskrit was never Indo-European to begin with all the Western
inspired chronologies of the composition of the sacred works of
Hinduism have to be revisited.
So show me with direct quotes that there was a Vedic-classical skt -
prakrit time progression observed by Indian grammarians.
I am contending that the vedic-Classical split is a Western bit of
mischief and that what became prakirt was present all along from the
earliest times among the hoi polloi.
> Comparative linguistics doesn't deal with language degradation; try to
> find a published article on language degradation.
Would a PhD (I think) thesis that the Latin to Romance descent might
have been to due to creolization do?
And what does apabhramsha mean?
Peter T. Daniels
> You are losing it. I am not challenging difference - I am challenging
> change. I have no doubt that Panini has said nothing about any of the
> languages varieties he observed being the result of change over time
> of one of them or from the favorite mythical beast of hist/comp ling -
> a proto-language of all them.
Once again: Where did Sanskrit come from, if not from some earlier
language?
> I also have no doubt that the Veda and the post-Vedic sacred works
> were the possession of a small fraction of Sanskritic people.
> Prakritization must have been happening among the less cultivated all
> along and I am sure the precious sound changes etc. of hist/comp ling
> were all there in their full glory in the speech of ordinary folks
> right from the time the Vedas were beginning to be composed.
And before, back to the very first speech community in East Africa.
> There is nothing from hist/comp ling that can apply to the differences
> between the langauge of the Veda and, say, the later Upanishads.
Ignoramus.
> Traditional hist/comp ling applies only to language degradation and
> not to stylistic language changes elites choose to make.
Ignoramus.
Joachim Pense
But what has been interpreted as traces of decay is visible in Sanskrit.
Like the loss of the subjunctive mood, the loss of the distinction of the
past tenses, the reduction of the use of inflected forms in favour of
participial constructions and compounds.
The same has been interpreted as a process actually enriching the language
by other westerners, but the existence of process itself cannot be denied.
Joachim
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> You waste a lot of time by being infantile and you spread a lot of
> misinfornation also (CAku as a verb maning "die" is current Tamil).
<c^Aku> is a spelling, not a pronunciation. Tamilians don't say
[c^Aku] and neither do Malayalais. Linguistics deals with spoken
language, remember. That Old Tamil, modern Tamil and Malayalam scribes
use the same spelling for a word is interesting but not relevant to
sound change. Current Tamil pronunciation of it always begins with
[s].
> I am contending that the vedic-Classical split is a Western bit of
> mischief
It's no more mischievous that Panini's 3 way split into mantre,
chandasi and bhasha since they're talking about much larger changes
than Panini was talking about. Authors of mantre Sanskrit would have
not been able to make sense of much of Kalidas' material - even the
portions of the dialogues that are in Sanskrit. Conversely, I had much
more difficulty with the Rg Samhita's Sanskrit than with Kalidas'
since the Sanskrit in Malayalam is much closer to the latter.
> and that what became prakirt was present all along from the
> earliest times among the hoi polloi.
Prakit wasn't present all along. Before the first verse in the Rig
Samita was composed, there was no Prakit; there were probably several
Old Indic dialects, one of which was used for composing that first
verse.
> > Comparative linguistics doesn't deal with language degradation; try to
> > find a published article on language degradation.
>
> Would a PhD (I think) thesis that the Latin to Romance descent might
> have been to due to creolization do?
According to a certain Mufwene, creoles developed in settlement
colonies in which speakers of a European language, often indentured
servants whose language would be far from the standard in the first
place, interacted heavily with non-European slaves, absorbing certain
words and features from the slaves' non-European native languages
[Acrolects], resulting in a heavily basilectalized version of the
original language whereas pidgins developed in trading areas.
According to others, Mufwene's creoles would not be creoles but
descended languages and to them, only languages descended from pidgins
would be creoles.
Romance languages might meet Mufwene's definition of creoles while not
meeting others' definitions.
> And what does apabhramsha mean?
fallen away. Its first known use is by Patanjali to imply aberrant or
deviant. An example is calling a cow not gava but gavI, gONi or gOtA .
So, who used Patanjali's apabrahmshas? gavI is the Pali word for cow.
What Patanjali said it was alright to use apabrahmshas in everyday
speech but not in mantras. Effectively, what that means is that he
wanted liturgy to remain in Sanskrit but one could speak, Sanskrit
with Pali words or Pali or whatever else on a daily basis. Much later,
it was the successors of Prakrits that were called apabhramshas,
whence the present meaning of apabhramsha:
http://horsesandswords.blogspot.com/2006/11/language-development-and-history.html
In the 6th Century CE King Guhasena of Vallabhi (Gujarat) recorded an
inscription where he mentions his proficiency in Sanskrit, Prakrit,
and Apabhramsa poetry.
Panini and Katyayana, on the other hand, didn't address the issue of
using Prakrit for matras; the question of its potential use had not
yet arisen. They merely recorded changes in Sanskrit without its
occuring to them than the issue of changing the mantra language might
arise one day:
http://www.languageinindia.com/july2004/anirbanapabrahmsa1.html
Deepti Tripathy, in the article "Apabhramsha in Sanskrit
Grammar," (Aligarh Journal of Oriental Studies, No.3: p.81-92)
mentions that, "PaaNini has used two methods of incorporating regional
variations in his grammar. These two methods are:
1. "By referring to the region in which a particular word is
exclusively used;
2. "By referring to grammarians of different region and mentioning
the variations acceptable to them."
Kaatyaayana also does not use the word apabhramsha or apashabda in his
Vt., but when he wrote his Vt., the PaaNinian Sanskrit had undergone
considerable changes. Kaatyaayana took note of these changes, which
were phonetic, morphological, and semantic in nature. These changes
can be considered to be the first step towards apabhramsha.
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> According to a certain Mufwene, creoles developed in settlement
That's Salikoko Mufwene, quondam classmate of mine and former chair of
the linguistics department, University of Chicago
> colonies in which speakers of a European language, often indentured
> servants whose language would be far from the standard in the first
> place, interacted heavily with non-European slaves, absorbing certain
> words and features from the slaves' non-European native languages
> [Acrolects], resulting in a heavily basilectalized version of the
> original language whereas pidgins developed in trading areas.
That's not terribly useful for creoles that don't involve a European
language.
> According to others, Mufwene's creoles would not be creoles but
> descended languages and to them, only languages descended from pidgins
> would be creoles.
That's the usual definition.
> Romance languages might meet Mufwene's definition of creoles while not
> meeting others' definitions.
First one would need a definition of "European language."
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Dec 21, 1:36 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > According to a certain Mufwene,
> the linguistics department, University of Chicago
Erstwhile. Quondam means you currently attend classes with him every
day.
> > creoles developed in settlement
> > colonies in which speakers of a European language, often indentured
> > servants whose language would be far from the standard in the first
> > place, interacted heavily with non-European slaves, absorbing certain
> > words and features from the slaves' non-European native languages
> > resulting in a heavily basilectalized version of the
> > original language whereas pidgins developed in trading areas.
Oops, I put Acrolects in the wrong place; removed.
> That's not terribly useful for creoles that don't involve a European
> language.
This doesn't involve a European language:
When subalterns speaking an acrolect, a localized variant of a
colonial language, interact heavily with natives absorbing words and
features from their native languages, it can eventually result in a
creole, a heavily basilectalized version of the original language. If
the colonial language remains commercially important, a mesolect
somewhere between the acrolect and basilect is likely to develop
eventually replacing the basilect while the acrolect moves closer to
the colonial language eventually becoming virtually identical with it
and used for foreign interactions.
To exercise the above definition, even if the account be inaccurate:
Local administrators speaking an acrolect derived from Latin
interacted heavily with natives of Costa del Sol absorbing words and
features of Punic, IberoCeltic and languages predating these, the
interaction producing a creole that eventually developed into Catalan.
Brian M. Scott
"ranjit_...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
<news:dd5ee11e-c404-4d43...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
in sci.lang, alt.lang, soc.culture.indian:
> On Dec 21, 12:11 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
[...]
>> That's Salikoko Mufwene, quondam classmate of mine and
>> former chair of the linguistics department, University
>> of Chicago
> Erstwhile. Quondam means you currently attend classes with
> him every day.
It certainly does not! 'Rex quondam, rexque futurus' -- the
once and future king. 'Erstwhile' is a synonym. So is
'whilom'.
[...]
Brian
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> The language elite change styles for creative reasons (and I don't
> know how you made the infantile construction that by the elite I meant
> grammarians - I meant the authors of creative works in the high
> language of the time).
Authors changed their language in response to changes in the highest
register of spoken language. In addition, they coined expressions or
cliches that came to be used in spoken language. Eg., Shakespeare's
"in one fell swoop" or Asvaghosha's short-bed-blanket-maned horse.
That the language used by authors stopped changing 1500-2000 years
back is the sign that it ceased to be a spoken language.
> Since Sanskrit was never Indo-European to begin with all the Western
> inspired chronologies of the composition of the sacred works of
> Hinduism have to be revisited.
Even if Sanskrit is IndoEuropean, chronologies have to be revisited
whenever pertinent data are found. It's not like it magically becomes
non-Indo-European just because a millenium has to be added to its
estimated age.
> So show me with direct quotes that there was a Vedic-classical skt -
> prakrit time progression
Prakrits and Vedic Sanskrit came from Old Indic. No known Prakrit
seems to have come directly from Sanskrit which indicates that Old
Indic was spoken for many generations before verses were composed in
Vedic Sanskrit (or before Old Indic prose was converted into Vedic
Sanskrit verse).
> observed by Indian grammarians.
Only progressions within Sanskrit were commented on by Sanskrit
grammarians. There were no commentaries by them on the grammars of
other Indic languages contemporaneous with Sanskrit..
anal...@hotmail.com
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 4:23 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Dec 21, 6:54 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > The language elite change styles for creative reasons (and I don't
> > know how you made the infantile construction that by the elite I meant
> > grammarians - I meant the authors of creative works in the high
> > language of the time).
>
> Authors changed their language in response to changes in the highest
> register of spoken language. In addition, they coined expressions or
> cliches that came to be used in spoken language. Eg., Shakespeare's
> "in one fell swoop" or Asvaghosha's short-bed-blanket-maned horse.
> That the language used by authors stopped changing 1500-2000 years
> back is the sign that it ceased to be a spoken language.
authors are part of the elite that define the upper register. There
cannot be any reductive changes in the early religious works in
Sasnkrit that have come down to us since they were all composed by the
elite in a continuous sweep as the truths were passed down through
oral transmisison. There were small style changes that Western
mischief makers have chracterized as decay.
It is true that at some point the highest religious insights had
pretty much been codified in language and then on a stasis set in and
the high language started to be steadily invaded by the Prakritising
masses.
>
> > Since Sanskrit was never Indo-European to begin with all the Western
> > inspired chronologies of the composition of the sacred works of
> > Hinduism have to be revisited.
>
> Even if Sanskrit is IndoEuropean, chronologies have to be revisited
> whenever pertinent data are found. It's not like it magically becomes
> non-Indo-European just because a millenium has to be added to its
> estimated age.
>
> > So show me with direct quotes that there was a Vedic-classical skt -
> > prakrit time progression
>
> Prakrits and Vedic Sanskrit came from Old Indic.
What is Old Indic? is it another fantasy like PIE?
> Only progressions within Sanskrit were commented on by Sanskrit
> grammarians. There were no commentaries by them on the grammars of
> other Indic languages contemporaneous with Sanskrit..
You keep evading the basic question:
Did they say that a certain usage is corrupt and that that usage
didn't exist in earlier varieties of Sanskrit?
And what is "Indic"?
Why not say "Indian"?
"Indian" doesn't have to stand for the passport=granting aithority
that sits at the United Nations - if there can be an Indian Ocean we
can have Indian languages also.
António Marques
> To exercise the above definition, even if the account be inaccurate:
> Local administrators speaking an acrolect derived from Latin
> interacted heavily with natives of Costa del Sol absorbing words and
> features of Punic, IberoCeltic and languages predating these, the
> interaction producing a creole that eventually developed into Catalan.
The traits of catalan are mosty those of occitan, and occitan covers the
whole southern third of Gaul; their closest relatives are northern
italian languages and french (that is, the ones which share the most
traits). It seems more or less clear that the differentiation of romance
languages followed geographical and economical lines which had little to
do with what languages were spoken before. And trying to reconstruct a
'proto-romance' language leaves us with something very similar to what
is known of vulgar latin, only on the verge of losing all its cases and
strongly relying on word order - derived from earlier usage where it
just wasn't so mandatory - for disambiguation. And the seeds of that
development are the loss of distinction of long and short vowels along
with the weakening of final syllables, which were fundamental for case
distinction.
'Creolisation' is supposed to be nothing of the sort. It's the process
by which a pidgin - a hodgepodge of of different languages which follows
no rules other than 'making yourself understood' - becomes a language
(which does have rules). Creolisation is an 'improvement', not a
'regression'.
If someone wants a word to describe 'development from a synthetic to an
analytical stage', then find one, please don't hijack 'creolisation'.
Oh, and Merry Christmas.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter T. Daniels
> 'Creolisation' is supposed to be nothing of the sort. It's the process
> by which a pidgin - a hodgepodge of of different languages which follows
> no rules other than 'making yourself understood' - becomes a language
> (which does have rules). Creolisation is an 'improvement', not a
> 'regression'.
Pidgins do not "follow no rules." Their remarkable uniformity around
the world suggests that they tap into the basics of communication --
see Bickerton, passim.
John Atkinson
Possibly so, but there's more in them than just a putative bio-program.
All the pidgins I know anything about use rules which strongly resemble,
in a simplified form, those of the parent language(s) of their earliest
speakers. Atlantic pidgins those of west African languages, Pacific
pidgins those of Oceanic languages (Tok Pisin, in particular, those of
Tolai).
John.
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote...
The parent languages, too, are built on those same basics. The P&P
folk are right as far as this, anyway.
António Marques
I thought Tok Pisin was a creole.
John Atkinson
It is now. But for several decades following about 1880 it was a true
pidgin, developed by contract labourers from the Bismark Islands while
they were working on the copra plantations in Samoa, and used by them to
communicate with their employers, and workers from other language
groups, on the German plantations where they worked after they returned
to New Guinea.
J.
phog...@abo.fi
> On Dec 19, 6:30 am, analys...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > You are losing it. I am not challenging difference - I am challenging
> > change. I have no doubt that Panini has said nothing about any of the
> > languages varieties he observed being the result of change over time
> > of one of them or from the favorite mythical beast of hist/comp ling -
> > a proto-language of all them.
>
> Once again: Where did Sanskrit come from, if not from some earlier
> language?
I guess this goddess of theirs gave it to them, fully developed. That
is the point he is trying to make, but he doesn't quite venture to say
it aloud.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> "António Marques" <m...@sapo.pt> wrote...
> > John Atkinson wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote...
Two points
1) It's a creole now in the sense of "has native speakers", but these
native speakers are still a minority of the people who use it.
"Creolizing pidgin"?
2) The basic Melanesian Pidgin had already been developed by workers
from the Solomons and New Hebrides (Vanuatu) on those Samoan
plantations (and in Queensland) before the New Guinea folks came
along.
(I always point this out to correct the somewhat New Guinea-centric
view of the language that still prevails.)
Ross Clark
Peter T. Daniels
> On Dec 30, 2:52 am, "John Atkinson" <johna...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > "António Marques" <m...@sapo.pt> wrote...
> > > I thought Tok Pisin was a creole.
> > It is now. But for several decades following about 1880 it was a true
> > pidgin, developed by contract labourers from the Bismark Islands while
> > they were working on the copra plantations in Samoa, and used by them to
> > communicate with their employers, and workers from other language
> > groups, on the German plantations where they worked after they returned
> > to New Guinea.
> Two points
>
> 1) It's a creole now in the sense of "has native speakers", but these
> native speakers are still a minority of the people who use it.
> "Creolizing pidgin"?
>
> 2) The basic Melanesian Pidgin had already been developed by workers
> from the Solomons and New Hebrides (Vanuatu) on those Samoan
> plantations (and in Queensland) before the New Guinea folks came
> along.
> (I always point this out to correct the somewhat New Guinea-centric
> view of the language that still prevails.)
So, Tok Pisin _is_ or _is not_ the language Robert A. Hall, Jr.,
described as part of his wartime work, under the title "Melanesian
Pidgin English", thereby becoming the American Descriptivist de facto
authority on pidginization? (He also did Hungarian; his French wasn't
part of his war effort.)
phog...@abo.fi
"Indic" is a technical term referring to a certain subgroup of Indo-
European languages.
>
> Why not say "Indian"?
Because there are non-Indic languages spoken natively in India.
Kashmiri, spoken in Jammu and Kashmir, is usually classified among the
Dardic languages, a non-Indic subgroup of Indo-European languages. And
as everybody knows, there are lots of Dravidian languages spoken in
southern India. These are obviously not Indic, as they are not even
Indo-European. They also speak Tibeto-Burman languages in India, such
as Sikkimese. There are also isolates, at least Nihali, spoken by a
couple of thousand in Maharashtra.
>
> "Indian" doesn't have to stand for the passport=granting aithority
> that sits at the United Nations - if there can be an Indian Ocean we
> can have Indian languages also.
We certainly can. "Indian languages" are languages spoken natively in
India. Or if it does not have to stand for the passport-granting
authority, then we can call all languages of the Indian subcontinent
"Indian languages" - then it will include Khowar and Burushaski, too.
Due to this terminological uncertainty about what "Indian languages"
are, "Indic languages" is a necessary term for scientific usage.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> On Dec 21, 4:40 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> And what is "Indic"?
>
> Why not say "Indian"?
Only descendants of Vedic Sanskrit and its unrecorded sister languages
are classified as Indic. If you want to call Tamil an Indic language,
you'd have to show that your "archaic Tamil" was identical or very
similar to Vedic Sanskrit.
> "Indian" doesn't have to stand for the passport=granting aithority
> that sits at the United Nations - if there can be an Indian Ocean we
> can have Indian languages also.
There are Indian languages, but the ones not descended from Old Indic
(Vedic Sanskrit and its sister languages) are not Indic languages.
John Atkinson
<benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote...
> Two points
> 1) It's a creole now in the sense of "has native speakers", but these
> native speakers are still a minority
About 10%, no?
> of the people who use it. "Creolizing pidgin"?
Agreed. I think people use "extended pidgin" for a language like this
that became widely used for all purposes and developed a creole-like
grammar, without passing through child learners. Which is the case even
today except for about 10% of speakers of TP, no?
> 2) The basic Melanesian Pidgin had already been developed by workers
> from the Solomons and New Hebrides (Vanuatu) on those Samoan
> plantations (and in Queensland) before the New Guinea folks came
> along.
> (I always point this out to correct the somewhat New Guinea-centric
> view of the language that still prevails.)
And, even before this, many of its features can be traced back to early
nineteenth century Australian pidgin, and even before this to nautical
jargon and early Atlantic pidgin.
But ISTM that, in Samoa, Tolai was the substrate, providing the grammar,
and "basic Melanesian pidgin" the superstrate, providing the lexicon.
Of course, BMP's grammar was already pretty much Oceanic, so this was no
big deal. Does this make sense to you?
Of course, this is not to underplay the role of diffusion/borrowing
between the various dialects of MP, including TP, during the 20th
century.
BTW, how come no Pacific creole has different sorts of possession (e.g.,
alienable/inalienable), like (all?) Oceanic languages do? They've had
no trouble adapting other Oceanic complications, like dual pronouns and
inclusive/exclusive pronouns.
John.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
wrote:
Is. Though IIRC his informants were all Europeans who had spent time
in New Guinea (including Margaret Mead), so phonologically at least it
is a little like "Tok Masta" (white man's pidgin). He later published
a short paper on the Solomon Islands variety of MP.
Ross Clark
benl...@ihug.co.nz
> <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote...
Sounds about right.
>
> > of the people who use it. "Creolizing pidgin"?
>
> Agreed. I think people use "extended pidgin" for a language like this
> that became widely used for all purposes and developed a creole-like
> grammar, without passing through child learners. Which is the case even
> today except for about 10% of speakers of TP, no?
Right. I think that now there is another trend, that even where the
pidgin is a second language it is being learned at a younger age. So
in addition to "first language" speakers who may have no other
language, there will be increasing numbers of "second native language"
speakers learning it before the critical age.
> > 2) The basic Melanesian Pidgin had already been developed by workers
> > from the Solomons and New Hebrides (Vanuatu) on those Samoan
> > plantations (and in Queensland) before the New Guinea folks came
> > along.
> > (I always point this out to correct the somewhat New Guinea-centric
> > view of the language that still prevails.)
>
> And, even before this, many of its features can be traced back to early
> nineteenth century Australian pidgin, and even before this to nautical
> jargon and early Atlantic pidgin.
Basic grammatical features like the use of long and blong, transitive -
Vm, and adnominal FELLOW, are documented from New Hebridean speakers
in the 1870s. Although these appear earlier in Australia, the
particular configuration or profile seems to me distinctive of MP, so
this is where I see the beginnings of the language.
> But ISTM that, in Samoa, Tolai was the substrate, providing the grammar,
> and "basic Melanesian pidgin" the superstrate, providing the lexicon.
> Of course, BMP's grammar was already pretty much Oceanic, so this was no
> big deal. Does this make sense to you?
I think BMP came with grammar too, since even the "Oceanic" features
agree so well in form between TP and the other varieties. Tolai did
play an important role, but more so after the contact with non-New
Guinea speakers came to an end.
.
>
> Of course, this is not to underplay the role of diffusion/borrowing
> between the various dialects of MP, including TP, during the 20th
> century.
I think this becomes important only in the late 20th century, indeed
I'm not sure I'd consider it "important" even now. I think it's
significant that the non-English lexical components (local Melanesian
languages, French in Bislama, German in TP), show no diffusion
whatever, suggesting that they became established when the different
territories were in considerable isolation from one another.
> BTW, how come no Pacific creole has different sorts of possession (e.g.,
> alienable/inalienable), like (all?) Oceanic languages do? They've had
> no trouble adapting other Oceanic complications, like dual pronouns and
> inclusive/exclusive pronouns.
A very good question. This came up recently at a talk by Miriam
Meyerhoff. She thought she had detected (rather subtle) discourse
effects in Bislama corresponding to the alienable/inalienable
distinction, but she is no longer so sure. I have never heard a report
of any variety of MP which had the kind of formal distinction which is
so common in Oceanic.
Ross Clark